OK, I know this is a couple of weeks late, but as the club have just issued their annual results and, once again, show a big loss, I wondered if there were any Chelsea Pitch owners here who could explain why they are so anti giving Abramovich the chance to build a stadium that meets the much higher capacity required.
I mean I understand the attachment to the Bridge and the feeling that any control is lost if they hand him the keys, but surely his 1 billion investment and the fact that the Board are actively looking at potential sites for a 60 thousand seater stadium is enough to convince us of his continued commitment to the club.
Its clear that Stamford Bridge just isn't viable to be developed to give the extra capacity and therefore the much needed extra revenue is never going to materialise unless we accept the inevitable. And if we continue to expect top players to be signed then surely we have to start realising that the money can't forever come from Roman's pocket.
It's not the FFP rules that I'm particularly worried about, at least not whilst Barca and Real Madrid remain two of the worst culprits, as I can never see the day that Platini tries kicking them out of the Champions League. And anyway, from what I've heard about these rules, there are so many things that can be excluded from the calculations that I'm sure accountants are already working on their smoke and mirrors routines to satisfy UEFA.
I'm just interested to know what CPO, or people that support them, see as the way forward if the Bridge is non-negotiable.
Chelsea Pitch Owners
posted on 2/2/12
I wondered if there were any Chelsea Pitch owners here who could explain why they are so anti giving Abramovich the chance to build a stadium that meets the much higher capacity required.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are not anti a new stadium, they just want to make sure the same assurances are in place for the new stadium as they are now for the old.
posted on 2/2/12
what omlette said
posted on 2/2/12
surely his 1 billion investment and the fact that the Board are actively looking at potential sites for a 60 thousand seater stadium is enough to convince us of his continued commitment to the club.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually if anything we can argue he increases the risk that he wants to finally have control so he can get a return on his huge investment.
posted on 2/2/12
Fair comment and I accept that there is an element of trust coming into play. But I try and see this from Roman's perspective. He's ploughed a billion into the club, repeatedly backed us in the transfer market and effectively shown two fingers to all those bitter rivals who have tried saying he would soon get bored.
And yet when he tries to realise our potential earnings through increased ticket sales (not unreasonable given what he's contributed) we basically tell him 'sorry Roman, we don't trust you...oh and by the way, any chance of another 100 million in the summer?'
posted on 2/2/12
Its clear that Stamford Bridge just isn't viable to be developed to give the extra capacity and therefore the much needed extra revenue is never going to materialise unless we accept the inevitable.
----------------------------------------------------------
Although I suspect this is probably correct it actually is not clear. The fact that the club misled CPO by saying they had explored all options to stay at SB only to be told by Hammersmith council that they were open to discussions to keep Chelsea at SB hardly inspires trust between the two parties.
posted on 2/2/12
The way forward is simple, give the CPOs the same rights on any new stadium as they have now.
Rights to have a say on what happens to CFC but not rights to make money out of CFC.
posted on 2/2/12
In my experience the views of CPO holders vary greatly, there are plenty that are happy to give up their shares without recompense if it will help the club move forward. There are some that (to me at least) seem determined to resist because they do not want to move for the history reasons, this group have attracted enough support to defeat the initial vote.
The club didn't do itself any favours either but the demands of some (Tell us where we are going and then we might think about it) are a bit of a stretch, I mean say it was announced, property in said location could sky rocket pushing up the costs of the move.
I have friends that are CPO members in both camps, more in the say no camp to be honest, and that is not the camp I would be in but remember, they are a minority, it it was a pure majority vote it would have passed and we weren't that far off getting the numbers required.
posted on 2/2/12
I agree its not unreasonable to request that the new ground is sited within x? miles of the current location, but I'm less sure about whether the current CPO can expect to have the same voting rights at that new location. Having a pitch owners group in tow isn't a prerequisite at most clubs and I can't see why we should be any different.
posted on 3/2/12
Having a pitch owners group in tow isn't a prerequisite at most clubs and I can't see why we should be any different.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let´s compare ourselves to Arsenal in this regard and their ground move.
Arsenal is run by board members and has a strong local community fan base.
Chelsea is run by one man with strong political ties to Russia and Putin. There are risks associated with Roman, The club also does not have a strong community fan base.
I feel that we our club´s future totally dependent to the whims of one man there is simply to much risk and the minimum we need is the same control mechanisms as we have now with the CPO.
posted on 3/2/12
Not going to comment on Chelsea's ground plans, but about the myth that Barca and R. Madrid are falling foul of the FFP rules. Madrid make profits every year and Barca posted a small loss last time out well inside what UEFA will allow. Debt is only an issue if you cannot manage it.